States across America are weighing the decision of whether or not to reopen their economies. Some—such as Georgia and Florida—have few restrictions in place now and have allowed businesses to reopen, while others—among them Connecticut and Michigan—continue to limit economic activity.
Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, the lobbying arm of The Heritage Foundation, and a former member of the Trump administration, joins “Problematic Women” to explain why states should allow Americans to get back to work as soon as possible. Anderson also breaks down the costs of state bailouts and why they would do more harm than good.
Melanie Israel, research associate in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, also joins the show to share the latest news regarding whether abortions should be deemed an “essential” medical procedure during COVID-19.
>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.
And as always, we will be crowning our Problematic Woman of the Week.
Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript of the interview with Anderson.
Virginia Allen: I’m joined by Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action for America, the lobbying arm of The Heritage Foundation and the former associate director of intergovernmental affairs and strategic initiatives for the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump administration.
Jess, thanks so much for being here.
Jessica Anderson: Thanks for having me. Great to be with you all.
Lauren Evans: Before I start, I just want to say you are such a lady boss, and I’m so excited that you’re on the show.
Anderson: Well, it’s awesome to be with you guys. I love “Problematic Women.” I listen to it all the time, and it’s such a pleasure to be here.
Allen: Oh, it’s so good to have you. And I’m really excited to talk with you today about just some of the practical things that are happening in our world, such as states trying to reopen their economies and, gosh, bailouts, and just all of this information that we’re hearing about in the news. So let’s begin by talking about states reopening.
Heritage Action is very involved with grassroots activism across the country, and I know that you’re regularly in touch with people from all 50 states. So, what are you hearing from people?
Anderson: So, folks all across the country are incredibly eager to open back up. They feel like they’ve done their part to slow the spread. They feel like New York City is different than suburbs of Dallas, Texas; different than Orlando, Florida; different than Iowa. And every state has a different influx of cases and a different capacity for their health care systems.
And as such, they feel like we don’t need this one-size-fits-all blanket stay-at-home order from coast to coast. So, the grassroots [are] really animated about this. They’re eager for opening. They’re eager to be allowed to travel and to try to return to some semblance of a new normal, once all of this is behind us.
But we have conversations, really, daily from small business owners or college students or grandparents of high school [students], graduating seniors. And all the stories I hear are just this anxiety to get back to normal, open back up, and allow governors to make decisions for their states based on the data at the state and local level.
Evans: So, your organization, Heritage Action, has launched a petition, “Open Up America,” that now has 100,000 signatures. Can you explain what that is and what you are advocating for in this petition?
Anderson: Absolutely. So, it’s actually breaking news that we just reached 100,000 signatures, and I’m so thrilled about that milestone, because it just shows how eager people are to move forward.
And so, the petition is really simple. It’s six principles, and they’re based on freedom. People should be free to travel. Governors should only implement stay-in-place orders in targeted and specific manners based on those local needs.
It goes on to talk about businesses being able to open to the public and only apply restrictions where the coronavirus or COVID-19 incidences are high.
And then it talks about—and this is one of my favorite parts of the petition—it talks about American responsibility.
I think that’s really the hidden blessing that’s come out of this crisis … that America as a whole, our people are great, and we have incredible strengths and personal responsibilities, and a civic duty to care for our neighbors, to care for the elderly, some of those vulnerable populations.
And so, the petition turns all of that on its head and says, “Do you commit to holding your end of the bargain to make informed decisions regarding social health and economic issues?” And so, as you can expect, the petition took off like a wildfire.
We launched it just 15 days ago. And in the course of just grassroots momentum of sharing the petition from one activist to another, we’ve reached 100,000 signatures, and we’re excited because this week we’re going to deliver them directly to the National Governors Association, as part of this larger momentum this week that’s coalescing all across the country of telling governors, it’s time to open American society, and you can do it in a smart and thoughtful way based on the data at the local level.
Allen: That’s really exciting, Jess. I think it’s so neat to see just people engaging in this civic process. And as you’re talking to people in different parts of the country, what are you hearing that are those issues that they’re most concerned about, and do they differ regionally?
I mean, the people in New York, where they’ve been closed longer and under a stricter shutdown because of coronavirus, are they worried about different things than, let’s say, people in Florida that have had less restrictions?
Anderson: It’s really interesting because the anxieties in this crisis have taken different impact levels. And so, what I mean by that is, when this whole thing started, everyone was really concerned about the health impact and the fear of catching the coronavirus or that a loved one would, [it] really drove us all into isolation. And in a lot of ways, it paralyzed us.
We didn’t know if we could go to the grocery store. We didn’t know if we could travel, and everyone really just went inside and closed their doors. We all know this. We did the same thing.
In recent weeks, though, it’s become clear that in addition to the health concerns, there’s a huge amount of concern about the economic impact of the virus itself. And part of that are all of these subplots. That’s what we’ve been calling them at Heritage Action.
So, the big plot is health and economic impact. The subplots underneath it are things like, are we too reliant on China for American manufacturing? What does that even mean? [Are] there concerns about testing and whether or not that people are able to access that by a large volume and a large population?
What’s the concern about when a business reopens? Will it have liability and be on the line if someone gets sick in their stores? And so all of it, and there’s more, other subplots, but those three ones really weave the fabric of concerns that I’m hearing as I talk to people on a daily basis.
And I think it’s really interesting because these types of concerns really unite people all across the country, but how these concerns are applied, it truly depends on what their specific state apparatus is. And so in a state like Florida, actually, where I am right now, we escaped the D.C. area down to Florida this weekend. And I feel like I’m living free down here.
Florida is basically open. They’re moving through a multiphase plan. They’re one of the 44 states across the country that are somewhat open, but they’re definitely on the leading edge.
Gov. [Ron] DeSantis is out front on this. We have two great senators, Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, who are both leading in this effort. And it’s a totally different … vibe down here than the vibe I was getting in the D.C. metro area, where it was “one in, one out” of the grocery store.
And so, those sorts of uniqueness at the state and level, I think, really impact people’s psyches and mental stability and also impacts just exactly what their anxieties are with each of these subplots. I mean, states are different, and I think that’s really important to know, because you have states like Michigan and Virginia that are just lagging behind in their openings. And then you compare that with a state like Florida or Georgia or North Dakota. North Dakota opened, and hasn’t had a single new case in three days.
This is what we mean. There’s differences in states, and we can’t have this one-size-fits-all policy. It’s because we need businesses in counties with the lowest incidence allowed to reopen, and that is exactly what’s going to allow the economy to bounce back, not bailouts, not additional direct cash payments, and certainly not this reckless spending that the left is promulgating in Washington.
Evans: That’s so funny. You bring up the difference between Florida and D.C. I made the opposite trip this weekend, and down there, they’re still wearing masks, and they’re still social distancing, but the word “vibe” is the perfect way to put it.
In D.C., it feels like we’re like living in this weird … society, and in Florida, people are still being normal. Why do you think there’s a hesitance with [these] more left-leaning states to not open when we’re seeing states like Florida and Georgia being pretty normal as they open up?
Anderson: Well, I think it’s really unfortunate, because I think some of these left-leaning states are really leading into some of this partisan warfare that we are seeing across the country, when you have a governor, like the governor of Michigan, who’s refusing to work with her Legislature, and it comes across that she is randomly banning some things versus others in her state.
If you look closer, you actually see a pretty partisan road map that she’s trying to walk forward on, because a state like Michigan is so critical electorally for the president and his reelection efforts.
And so, I think you have this dichotomy between a red state and a blue state, where they know that they can weaponize this virus, not only politically, but also on a policy basis. And that’s what we saw from the liberal left and their attempts to jam through legislation in the House.
This last week, [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi came out with a [$3 trillion bill], and those funds are going to more than just coronavirus relief. They would be going to paying down pension debt at the state level, existing debt on state budgets, and in many cases, our research has found that they’re actually going directly to unions, who are turning around and then running ads against conservatives.
And so you really see, unfortunately, I think, this element of partisan warfare going on where the left feels that they can hold Americans hostage in this health and economic crisis to extract either partisan ends for the election in November or long-standing policy goals like we saw in the House this last week.
And I think the American people are waking up to that. I mean, they realize that they don’t want to be pawns in this partisan process. They want to fight back. They’re signing our petition. They’re talking to their governors. They’re reaching out to their members of Congress. They’re writing letters to the editor … across the country.
And that’s exactly what a group like ours, Heritage Action, likes to see because we are the people, and we are the ones that are able to hold our elected officials accountable and try to break through some of this partisan jamming that’s going on.
Allen: Yeah. Jess, let’s talk a little bit more about that spending element that we are seeing so much debate around and, specifically, state bailouts.
There’s a lot of debate about whether or not states should be bailed out. And [President Donald] Trump even said about bailouts during a sit-down with the press in the Oval Office, … “It’s not fair to the Republicans, because all the states that need help, they’re run by Democrats in every case. Florida is doing phenomenal. Texas is doing phenomenal. The Midwest is fantastic, very little debt.”
So, can you tell us about this issue and what you think should be done regarding bailouts or possible bailouts?
Anderson: Absolutely. I think, first, we need to define what is a state bailout. And so, when we’re talking about state bailouts, what we’re talking about is, should the federal government, should the American taxpayer, bail out through the form of unrestricted aid, send dollars back to states?
So, that’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about the millions of dollars per [House] seat that already went to each state because of coronavirus health impact through the CARES Act. That’s already been done, and relief like that that says, “Look, your state has been on the front lines when it comes to the health crisis. Let’s get you some relief,” and they did that through the CARES Act.
We’re not talking about opposing things like that. What we’re talking about is when [New York Gov. Andrew] Cuomo says, “I need unrestricted aid for the state of New York because I’ve been underfunded by $422 billion.” Or when a state like California or Illinois starts talking about their pension plans that are underfunded and need additional funds and want to use this crisis to backfill those coffers.
So everyone’s throwing around these terms, “Don’t bail out a state, don’t bail out a state.” “Oh, well, the states haven’t done anything wrong. This crisis has impacted them.”
We need to really separate the difference between the two. Relief that’s based on the health impact is one thing. And Congress has addressed that. And they’ll likely address that again. But unrestricted aid that’s going specifically to items like pension bailouts or political ads or union dues, or a fiscally mismanaged state budget, those things were well in action and well in place long before the coronavirus even hit and disrupted America.
And the American taxpayer, we should not be on the hook for those poor fiscal decisions before. We’re already on a hook for so much spending when it comes to what the CARES Act did and congressional responses the last 60 days.
So, we need to separate the two and really understand what it is that they’re asking for. And that’s the type of thing that I’m so pleased to see so many Americans opposing and also—credit where credit is due—Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Senate has been adamant against any sort of state bailout for unrestricted aid to states that has nothing to do with the coronavirus health and economic crisis at all.
Evans: So, let’s say these states do get a bailout. How can we make sure that we are holding them accountable and this crazy, out-of-control spending that you were just talking about doesn’t happen?
Anderson: Well, I think that if there is a state bailout that goes forward, it’s going to go first with a lot of conservative opposition. And it’s not going to be an easy bill to pass in the House or Senate, and it’s certainly not going to be an easy bill for the president to sign.
So, let’s first just call balls and strikes, which is that moving a state bailout through Congress is going to be incredibly difficult and be faced with a significant amount of resistance from the right and from fiscally sound moderates as well. So, I think that’s one.
Second, if it were to pass … and I don’t love playing the game of what-ifs, but if it were to pass, I think you are going to see an incredible amount of revolt to spending that is just completely out of control.
I wrote an article about this this last week, when you look specifically at how much of this debt is just being passed onto the millennial generation. And I start off my article saying the days of overpriced avocado toast and lattes may be over for millennials. And it’s the only time I’ve written about avocado toast and vanilla lattes, but I just loved it because the reality is the youngest generation in the workforce is in for an incredibly rough 2020.
They’re graduating high school, graduating college, entering the workforce, and now they’re going to have an insane amount of debt that’s just saddled to their shoulders.
Even if we caught somewhat of a break through the Trump-era economic boom, all of that really is under the water. And so when you look at the debt that’s being passed down to the next generation, that is a crisis. It’s a crisis that doesn’t really have an end date. It doesn’t have a vaccine. It doesn’t have data-driven decision-making capabilities. It’s going to affect everyone.
So, this model of just let the next generation deal with it, and these decades of passing the buck from generation to generation when it comes to debt is incredibly concerning.
And that’s exactly what I believe Americans need to hold their members of Congress and the president accountable for, and talk specifically about how debt is going to strangle this next generation. And to get out of this, to dig ourselves out of this irresponsible spending, we’re going to have to take even more dramatic steps to cut spending going forward.
Everything’s going to have to be on the table. We’re going to have to look specifically [at] all of the expenditures of the United States government. We’re going to have to work hard to bring and to allow businesses to flourish here, so that looks like cutting [regulations], cutting taxes, and finding ways that we can get back to a balanced budget and getting back to [sustainable] spending and in a smart way.
And these are the types of things that the lasting effects of the coronavirus, long after this ends, America is still going to have to be dealing with, especially the millennial generation.
Allen: So, in regards to that, and fixing this, really, crisis here that we find ourselves in with so much debt, how much of that has to be done at the federal level versus the state and local level?
Anderson: Well, both. So, state and local governments, but in particular state governments, have the ability to manage and to pay down their own fiscal budget sheets.
And so you look at a state of Florida, which we’ve been talking about. You know that Sen. Scott, when he was governor, he worked to pay down the debt here to have a balanced budget in the state of Florida. DeSantis has carried that tradition and wise fiscal spending for such a large state that we have in the South.
Same with Texas. Texas has a great state budget. Gov. [Greg] Abbott works incredibly hard and diligently to ensure that his [budget] sheets are balanced as well. And also that there’s a rainy day, and a rainy day fund allows states to tap into that for extraordinary times, such as this coronavirus crisis that we find ourselves in.
And so, states play a part here in balancing their own budget sheets and making smart fiscal decisions, but the federal government over by and large, and as the largest holder of debt in our country, way more than just what’s at the state level. This is really what we’re talking about.
When you look just at, for instance, the millennial generation, they’re responsible for trillions of new debt incurred just this year, on top of the $23 trillion that was already an existing federal debt. So, we’re not even talking about just coronavirus debt, but everything that was before has now added on.
And so, the federal government has a huge responsibility here to get serious about cutting spending, to take a hard look at what programs it’s funding, to take a hard look at the waste, fraud, and abuse that’s right in the agencies.
Now, this Trump administration has done, I think, a really good job in taking the first two or three steps in not only identifying the waste, fraud, and abuse, but then signaling that it’s going to weed it out. But that work is nowhere near being done.
And the good work that President Trump has done, Congress needs to follow suit and pass budgets that are within our means as a country and really work on lowering the federal debt.
And that’s got to include cutting programs. It’s got to include lowering taxes. It has to include a strong deregulatory agenda. And it also has to include some of this cap on some of this fiscal mismanagement that we’re seeing.
Evans: The House Democrats just passed the HEROES Act, a massive coronavirus package that isn’t expected to pass in the Senate. What do you think of this bill?
Anderson: Well, first, I would just like to say, it’s so challenging when these bills get named really good things. Can we just acknowledge that? How can anyone be against the HEROES Act? Come on. I just want to say that that’s always such a challenge, but the recently passed HEROES Act, such as it’s called, it’s going to cost $3 trillion, and that’s more than the rest of the coronavirus funding put together. So, that’s more than what we’ve already spent with the CARES Act. So, it’s nearly as much as the United States receives in revenue annually.
So when you put that $3 trillion up against what’s already been happening, you see it’s just through the roof. And the reality is that this bill has a number of policy problems in it.
It includes a Postal Service bailout, and it includes billions of dollars, almost nearly a trillion of state and local bailouts. It has “environmental justice” grants, and it basically has a laundry list of things that the left has been promulgating and trying to push forward for years, and they’re using this crisis to do it.
So, I don’t think very highly of this bill. I have serious concerns. It’s not just at the policy level. Yes, we need to be concerned with the bailouts. We need to be concerned with this $50 million for environmental justice grants, stimulus payments for illegal immigrants, student loan forgiveness, a federal deduction of the [state and local taxes] cap that lifts it, all things that we’ve been fighting for or against on the conservative side for years.
But the other part of this, it’s not just the policy, it’s the blanket partisanship of this bill. And it couldn’t be more clear than when you look at how it interferes directly with states’ election rates. And so that part of the bill has to be top of our concerns.
When you look at how it would require and provide no-excuse absentee vote-by-mail ballots, it would forgo any form of identification to obtain an absentee ballot. It establishes vote-by-mail standards, something that is not in the Constitution at all, and if you did this, this vote-by-mail standard, it allows you to designate another person to return their ballot for them.
So, the ability for there to be even more fraud in our voting electoral system just completely gets stripped out and is exposed in an incredibly dangerous and unconstitutional way.
And so it’s not just the spending, it’s not just the policy wish list, it’s the larger, partisan effort to break our election process and our election safeguards that really frustrate me, and frankly, keep me up at night when we see something like this being pushed through the House.
Now, thankfully, I have all faith that the Senate will not take up this bill, but even if they don’t, it still matters because it sets the marker out there for what the liberal policy wish list is. It sets the marker that this is our starting point on the left.
This is exactly what the right has to fight against. And we have to work hard to loosen that policy foothold that the left has with so many voters across this country. And so, while the bill may not move forward, it still matters, and it’s still worth vigilantly fighting against and exposing exactly what it is that they’re trying to do.
Allen: And one of the ways that you all do so, strategically fight against things like the HEROES Act is through, really, grassroots engagement, and that’s through your Sentinels Program. Can you tell us a little bit about the role that your Sentinels play?
Anderson: So Heritage Action Sentinels are literally the front line of any legislative fight. They know their member of Congress. They know the areas that the member of Congress is most likely to work with to make a decision.
So, whether that’s working with donors around the member, working with newspapers to get letters to the editor or directly contacting them and their office, they’ve got those great relationships.
And so, when we’re in the middle of the legislative fight, we want to activate our Sentinels, so that they then can tap into their sphere of influence and create this echo chamber around a member saying, “Look, you can do the right thing here. This is what it is.”
It means standing up against a bill like the HEROES Act. It means standing up for small businesses and supporting things like the Paycheck Protection Program. And it means saying, “Look, we’ve got to get serious about spending. We’ve got to be real to cut that spending and to do it in a way that is strategic and protects the next generation.”
So, our Sentinels get activated, really, like you would light a match, and that sort of fire is lit across the country.
They then go to work in their communities, reaching into that with their relationships and encouraging the member of Congress to do the right thing when it comes to their vote, and then when it comes to whether it’s a bill moving through a committee or on the House floor, Sentinels are responsible, really, for knowing all those pieces.
So, we take pride in our Sentinel Program. We know that it’s the most advanced and sophisticated grassroots program in the nation right now, because it truly is on the front lines, and it depends heavily on those relationships to get the job done.
Allen: And for anyone listening, who’s thinking, “Wow, that sounds amazing. I wish I could be a Sentinel,” how can they maybe go about learning more or even becoming a Sentinel themselves?
Anderson: Well, we’d love to have you. So, the Sentinel team is constantly growing, and you can learn more at heritageaction.com, and you can click the icon that just simply says, “Become a Sentinel.”
We’re going to ask you a couple of questions about the things that you’re most interested in doing in your community, and then we’re going to match you up with an influencer coach. These are regional coordinators that are based in the states all across the country, and they’ll help build a plan to grow your relationship with your elected officials and to grow your influence in the community.
So we’d love to have you, heritageaction.com, and you can sign up right there, and we’ll be in touch.
Allen: Awesome. Well, switching gears a little bit, Jess, you have had such an amazing career in Washington, D.C., including an important position in the Trump administration, and now, of course, leading Heritage Action.
What advice do you have to other young women who maybe are working in D.C. or want to work in D.C. one day and they’re trying to figure out, how do I grow in my career and do that still, maybe in a way that is honoring and respectful, but that you’re really going after it?
Anderson: I have been incredibly fortunate. I’ve worked in this town for over a decade, and it’s an interesting and cut-throat town to work in. But I think the key to success really comes down to one thing, which is, you have to be faithful in the small things.
So, whenever you start out, there’s a tendency of “Oh, well, I got this big job. I didn’t think I was going to be making copies or writing talking points or sending out emails.” All of those things are part of the process.
I was fortunate enough that the first job I had out of college was in a small state think tank in this great state of North Carolina. And I was basically doing a jack-of-all-trades outreach role. And when you’re exposed to all different types of an organization and all different ways that the political process and the policy process really works, you really are able to learn as you go, but you have to be faithful in those small things, especially at the beginning as you’re building your career.
And then as you think about “OK, my career is on one track, how do I then ensure that I can still have a family?” I’m a mom of two incredibly adorable children. I have a 6-year-old son and an 8-month-old baby girl. And I have a really big gap in those years, and sometimes God just has different plans for when you have your children, but we’ve worked all along the way to have a partnership in our marriage where we pass off child care duties and we make sure that we’re both able to focus on our work and our family.
And we never think of it as a choice. You never think of it as, “Well, this is my family time. This is my work time.” Because then I feel like you set yourself up for failure, because you’re always going to have to choose one over the other.
We decided early on in our marriage and early on in my career that we would just never do that. I’m always working and I’m always a mom. There’s no lines.
And so, I think now that we’ve settled into a groove, we just continue to trust that there’s enough hours in the day, and if your to-do list slides over to the next day, that’s OK, but those small things, whether they were at the beginning of my career, or now, you got to do them and you got to stay faithful to them.
Evans: I have to say, well, there’s a lot of career moves in this town that go unnoticed, but I do have to say the day that you were named executive director, a lot of people just had, really, a lot of nice things to say about you. So, we’re just so excited for you in your new role at Heritage Action.
But before we let you go, you’re in Florida for a very exciting reason. Your sister’s getting married, and you don’t hear of a lot of weddings right now because people aren’t gathering. So, what are they doing to be able to have the ceremony, but also stay smart in the pandemic?
Anderson: Well, it’s so funny. So, my sister is getting married, and she set the date like most brides did six months ago, before any of this really wrestled and wrecked our worlds. And so she’s getting married on Saturday.
And instead of having a big, fancy wedding reception with 100 people, it’s going to be a small backyard wedding, with just her siblings and her parents, and the groom’s siblings and parents.
So it’s sweet, it’s intimate and it’s, I think, a memory that they will cherish for decades to come. And I love that they chose to do this.
Every bride, I think, that’s trying to get married during this time has to make the decision for herself, but for them, they were like, “There’s no reason to wait. We’re getting married. This is a union before God. Let’s just do it.”
And so we’re going to be gathered in the backyard of my parents’ house, under some twinkle lights that we bought from Home Depot, over the palm trees … . Let them say their vows, and we’ll pump up the back speakers as loud as we can on our iPads and have a great night.
So, it’s a really cool experience to be down here in Florida to be a part of. And I’m really excited for them. And I’m excited for all the brides that have had to be creative during this season to marry their true loves.
Allen: Yeah. Wow. I mean, every wedding is unforgettable, but ones during coronavirus, they have something special. Definitely, no one will ever forget. So, it’s fun.
Anderson: Well, I have to add one more thing. Not only are they doing the wedding, but they actually have a great sense of humor, I think, about the whole thing.
So when you go to a wedding, sometimes you get like a welcome packet that has the itinerary, you know, rehearsal dinner’s here, wedding’s here, we have this here, that sort of thing.
It’s a very, very organized family. So, we still had our little welcome basket, and it was a six-pack of Corona beers. And it said, “Welcome to our Corona wedding.” And I just thought, “This is perfect.” They’ve got a great sense of humor. They realize what this is all about, and we just couldn’t be happier.
Allen: I love that. It’s so creative. All right, Jess, well, before we let you go, we have to ask, we love to ask everyone that comes on this show this question, and we get such different responses.
Obviously, you’re conservative, but [we] want to know, do you consider yourself to be a feminist? Yes or no? Why or why not?
Anderson: I am a family feminist. I believe that women have the ability to make a choice, and that choice could mean staying home and growing their family. That choice could be going to work, or you can choose to do both.
So, I’d like to take back the term and redefine it as “family feminists” that put your family first and whatever that looks like for you, that’s the choice that you make.
And that makes me incredibly “problematic,” because I don’t fit into the clear cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all definition that liberal women have for women like me that want to have a compelling and interesting career, where we’re serving the American people and raising a family.
So, I consider myself a family feminist, and that makes me incredibly problematic.
Allen: It definitely does. Well, Jess, we’re so thankful for you coming on and just for all of your insight and all the hard work that you’re doing at Heritage Action. We just really appreciate your time today.
Anderson: Thank you so much for having me. I’ve loved the conversation, and I just love this podcast so much. Thank you.